Strangelove Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 I think I need to stay off FB or any place that lets people comment on things for a while. White people are showing their ignorance and lack of education like it's a contest to be the best at it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 A 66-year-old Nebraska woman has filed a federal lawsuit against all homosexuals for being gay. She has filed this on behalf of "Plaintiffs God, and His Son, Jesus Christ. Among her allegations are that the homosexuals say that "God doesn't care that their [sic] homosexuals; because He loves them." Obviously it's going to be dismissed. My guess would be it will be dismissed for lack of standing, with the court saying she doesn't have authority to bring a lawsuit on behalf of God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 What exactly would happen if she won that case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) It could also be dismissed on personal jurisdiction grounds because she didn't serve it on anyone. That's a threshold issue even before standing.Additionally, because she is seeking a declaratory judgment, she must also articulate an additional substantive cause of action under another theory because standalone declaratory judgment actions are not allowed under 28 USC 2201.This prohibition is related to the "actual case or controversy" requirement for standing.Also, pro se class actions are probably not allowed, even though the pro se doesn't purport to represent the class. Edit: "What exactly would happen if she won this case" is akin to asking "what exactly would happen if a lamed horse won the Indy 500," or "what exactly would happen if the UK populace ends up abolishing the monarchy in tomorrow's election." Edited May 6, 2015 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 Yeah, she can't possibly win, the only question is what legal deficiency out of the many available the judge will pick to use to dismiss it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) I hope an ambitious clerk is assigned to write the sua sponte dismissal order and really goes to town on the complaint. But, realistically, it will probably just languish in the docket until a clerk notices no service has been made and no motion for service by publication has been made and thus orders the plaintiff to show cause why it shouldn't be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Side question for Ethan: civil summonses in Wild West states like Nebraska and Kansas still require that personal service be made by a sheriff or other agent of the state, right? You can't just use a licensed process server? Edited May 6, 2015 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) At least in Kansas any attorney is authorized to serve process, and you can also have a special process server appointed. So like here there's a retired sheriff's officer who kind of enjoys it, so any time we need to have more control over service we'll ask the court to appoint him and they always will, but there's no general licensing of process servers. *Edit - All of that is in addition to having the sheriff serve it, which is the standard method. Edited May 6, 2015 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) That's so bizarre to me. In New York, you can serve registered companies by going to the secretary of state and you can personally serve individuals if you're a licensed process server, most of whom are *not* ex-cops, though private investigators who are ex-cops also often offer service, uh, services. We have a couple of in-house process servers who are students or artists and just need a side job to pay bills and rent. I can't imagine service by sheriff working in New York, or any populous state, at all. Attorneys can also serve process, but I've only ever done it myself when we've invited a client for a meeting and served them with a an order to show cause for us to be relieved as counsel. Edit: I hope the judge's order/decision in this crazy lady's case is also reported, because I'd love to see how the court responds. Edited May 6, 2015 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 Yeah, we run into trouble with the sheriff's department in Wichita (the closest thing we have to a big city) if we need stuff served there. We joke that they just drive by and if it doesn't look like anybody's home they return it as unable to serve. We can also serve things by certified mail, although that's really easy to avoid so we tend to only do it for businesses, who typically aren't trying to avoid service. With businesses there's lots of ways to serve them: you can serve them through their registered agent for service of process, or if they don't have one then you can serve them through the Secretary of State, or by serving a manager, partner, executive, or general agent, or you can always serve them by "leaving a copy of the summons and petition or other document at any of its business offices with the person having charge thereof" which means you can leave it with the secretary or front desk person at any business location. The only time I've ever served anyone myself was in a custody case: I wanted the other party's new girlfriend to testify, but she lives out of state so I hadn't been able to get her served. I had the subpoena ready to go, and he happened to bring her to court on his own, so I served her in the hallway outside the courtroom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted May 6, 2015 Report Share Posted May 6, 2015 Edit: "What exactly would happen if she won this case" is akin to asking "what exactly would happen if the UK populace ends up abolishing the monarchy in tomorrow's election." Hey, it wouldn't be fair. They've just had a new arrival. Maybe next time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 What exactly would happen if she won that case? Nothing. If this went to court, and for some reason the judge skipped over that fact that there was: 1. No actual plaintiff. 2. No actual defendant ("the gays" doesn't count). 3. No cause of action (e.g. a broken contract or similar). 4. No damage to the plaintiff who is after all omnipotent. And banged his gavel and said "I find in favour of the plaintiff." nothing would happen, other than the judge losing his/her job. The woman (from my brief skimming of her obtuse handwriting) hasn't actually asked for anything other than for the judge to agree that this sort of thing is Not On™. Now, knock on effects might be more severe, if the decision wasn't quickly overturned, buried, dug up, set on fire and buried again in the hopes that no one ever remembered that time the judiciary lost its mind, as it would establish in law that being the gay is a cause of action all by itself. You could have people arguing that they don't have to repay loans because someone in the bank is the gay and this is a Bad Thing™, but we're so far outside the realms of what is sensible now that it's all kind of pointless. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 https://twitter.com/diodesign/status/601238746118234112 With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses. Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone’s services — do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do you have right to food? — you’re basically saying you believe in slavery. I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care. You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be. HAahhh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredEffinChopin Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 This is why I get so annoyed when people ejaculate over the occasional principled, strong position that he holds. As is going on right now. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to take those from him, it's just that I get irritated when I start seeing the "stand with Rand" talk begin. I think what bugs me is that I know he's way smarter than that batshit insane quote that you just posted. That's a seriously dishonest line of bullshit as well as a flagrant fucking insult to peoples' intelligence. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 (edited) Hey, Ethan; nice state you got there. Not full of evil loonies at all. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/21/kansas-has-found-the-ultimate-way-to-punish-the-poor/ Edit: Rand Paul's statement is, to be fair, exactly what his namesake would say. I mean, it's idiotic in its oversimplification of rights and government services, but it's perfectly in character. Edited May 21, 2015 by Mr. GOH! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 https://twitter.com/diodesign/status/601238746118234112 With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses. Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone’s services — do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do you have right to food? — you’re basically saying you believe in slavery. I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care. You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be. HAahhh... FUCKING CHRIST! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 Hey, Ethan; nice state you got there. Not full of evil loonies at all. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/21/kansas-has-found-the-ultimate-way-to-punish-the-poor/ Edit: Rand Paul's statement is, to be fair, exactly what his namesake would say. I mean, it's idiotic in its oversimplification of rights and government services, but it's perfectly in character. You guys still charge for cash withdrawals? Over here the majority of ATMs are free (since they're ran by banks), with only the private ones in like nightclubs n such charging a fee. (which was funny to see Kenshi shy on a 75p charge on one since..stereotypes of Scottish people n such) Limiting to $25 seems insane too, over here £20 is like the usual minimum (you can manually type in to get £10 though, and there's even some cash machines will do £5 amounts though that's rare). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 The minimum is usually $20 for ATMs, though in poor areas in cities it can be $10. The legislation in Kansas is needlessly cruel,including the $25 daily limit, because Kansas is infected with evil and cruel idiots. Yes, ATM fees are outrageous, though if you're middle-class, they're usually free if you have the right kind of checking account. The poor do not qualify for those accounts, nor would these welfare debit cards qualify. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 I have yet to find a single person who will actually admit to having voted to reelect Brownback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Haha, I definitely recall seeing my local NHS doctor being rounded up by the police and forced to administer health care to someone. Pretty sure they didn't get the janitor though. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 The janitor was off helping round up the doctors that ran away... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 Yeah I've never understood the whole "allow the rich people to get richer and they'll pay the poorer folks more". I'm not paid by my boss, I'm paid by the company I work for. Any extra my boss makes/keeps goes towards better cars n holidays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TheMightyEthan Posted June 8, 2015 Popular Post Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 The thing that really bothers me is that now they're saying "Okay, to make up the revenue we won't start taxing business owners again, we'll just increase sales tax, because sales tax is more fair anyway." I have two issues with that: 1) sales tax isn't more fair, because the less money you have the higher the percentage you use on things that are subject to sales tax, so you actually end up paying a HIGHER effective tax rate, but even worse is 2) doing that means that now business owners don't have to pay income tax, only sales tax, while workers have to pay both income tax AND the new, higher sales tax. How is that fair in any way, shape or form? This rant brought to you by someone who directly benefits from this arrangement because he is a "business owner" and so doesn't have to pay state income tax. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRevanchist Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 Let me play devil's advocate here: So, you pay less in state income tax. What have you done with that extra money, or what will you do with that extra money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredEffinChopin Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 Imagine what that science class looks like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.